Shear strength of reinforced recycled concrete beams without stirrups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new method of mixture proportioning is used for investigating the shear performance of reinforced concrete (RC) beams made with coarse recycled concrete aggregate (RCA). In this method, RCA is treated as a two-phase material comprising mortar and natural aggregate therefore to proportion the concrete mixture with RCA, the relative amount and properties of each phase are considered separately. Using the new mix proportioning method, several beams were designed and tested to study the effect of a number of parameters including the shear span-to-depth ratio and beam size on the serviceability and strength of RCA concrete beams without shear reinforcement. For each beam its load–deflection curve, shear deformations, diagonal cracking load, crack pattern, ultimate shear strength and failure mode were determined. The results showed that the shear performance of RC beams made with RCA can be comparable, or even superior, to that of beams made entirely with natural aggregates at both serviceability and ultimate limit states, provided the proposed mixture proportioning method is used. Furthermore, the simplified methods of ACI and CSA standards as well as Eurocode 2 were found applicable to all reinforced RCA-concrete beams.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".